I understand and agree with the comments regarding the owner education undergone by the Swiss. There's something else, too, I believe (but might be misremembering): All adult Swiss males have a gun, but they don't all have access to the ammo or (I think) the gun itself. In event of a national emergency, the reserve leaders (I don't know what rank) make these guns available.
I might be whistling through my teeth, but I think that's the situation in Switzerland. In which case, it might be the additional barriers to gun usage that explains the low accident rate.
And so now, the corporations and the government want to force manufacturers to build surveillance into technology, all but eliminating another basic right of privacy.
That's something that gets my dander up. It's not that I'm opposed to surveillance being possible per se... there can be legitimate reasons. But it shouldn't be easy, and we shouldn't have to do the work for them.
Example: The NSA should invest in codebreaking technology. It's part of their mandate. But we shouldn't have to hand over keys, to obviate the need for the codebreaking tech.
Hollywood can be sued because they show violence in movies, which shows the common person how to commit violence!
That's the way to hurt them! The members of the MPAA are quick to call foul when people try to link their actions to negative outcomes. (Remember the fuss over the Beavis and Butthead copycats?) So let's make it clear that they are juggling two-edged swords, here...
I think Magna Carta pre-dates the American Constitution by a few centuries, and IIRC was one of the first (if not the first) documents to propose that common people had rights as well as those in positions of authority.
I certainly agree that the Magna Carta ranks up there with the First Amendment, but for different reasons. (And btw, the Magna Carta didn't give rights to "the common people". It merely expanded the pool of "those in positions of authority".) The importance of the Magna Carta was to establish, fitfully, the rule of law: the principle that no member of society -- not king, not bishop, not Microsoft CEO -- was above the law, and that law was not just what the head honcho felt on any given day. This is obviously crucial to the expansion of human rights that has occured since 1215, since if you're at the whim of a monarch, the rest of your rights are meaningless.
But I still aver that the First Amendment is as important as the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta says, "The laws apply to everyone", but it says nothing about those laws. Such a system need not be a free one -- the law can still specify what you are to do, think, or feel. The law can still allow retaliation for the expression of "improper" belief. But under the First Amendment, you are free to think what you want and to express your thoughts.
To put it another way: Under the Magna Carta, you can pass a law that says, "Two plus two equals five. Anyone who says otherwise is committing treason." As long as it did apply to everyone, the principles of the Magna Carta are upheld. (And, I suppose, as long as an assembly OKd the law.) But the First Amendment allows you to say, emphatically, "Two plus two equals four" and to avoid legal rataliation.
Of course it also allows you to say "Two plus two equals six". The First Amendment makes you free; it doesn't necessarily make you right. But what a wonderfully optimistic philosophy it is! So long as everyone is allowed to speak, then someone will speak the truth, and the truth will win out. I find that an uplifting view of the human race. It might not be true:) but it is uplifting.
This is only tangentially related, but I want to say something and it seemed to fit OK here. Quoth the poster:
If the DMCA is pitted against the constitution(first amendment)it will lose!:)
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is one of the greatest piece of philosophy ever invented. It has done more to liberate human kind than perhaps any other similar thought. Without taking the idea too seriously, it is the ultimate self-replicating meme, because it creates a safe haven for memes to grow.
Day by day I am more and more amazed with this mighty engine, invented almost by accident by 55 guys in Philadelphia. (Before you get on my case, I know similar concepts had been pushed by several of the states... I was going for historical resonance.:) )
There's a sweet symbolism in this being the _First_ (as in foremost) Amendment. It wouldn't have the same power as "Article VI" or whatever...
This week, for a little bit, I can begin to hope again.
at any rate this is probably the most important legal decision that will be made in the next decade and i shouldn't be making jokes about it..
Yes, you should. And I don't say that because I think the ruling is a joke... I actually agree that this is potentially a landmark decision. I say it because one of the key distinctions between the geeks and the drones is the geeks have a sense of humor. Sure, it's twisted and odd, but it's there. We appreciate life precisely becasue we don't have to take it seriously.
I can't emphasize enough how important this is, in my opinion. I can't yet express it but there's a kernel of something here, something deep and important about the culture war that's going on today. It's very important that we can laugh at ourselves. In my experience, those who can go far off course much less often than those who can't. I haven't worked out the karmic connection but it's there.
It is a very high standard - but the national security exception to the 1st amendment is used as an example of limits in every 1stA. case - usually referring to the unlawful publication of troop movements in wartime. The government need not change their argument to shove this puppy way up into the dark, sticky recesses of national security.
But there's still a world of difference between "This is speech that can be regulated for national security" and "This isn't speech and can be regulated on a whim". It's not the end, it's not the beginning of the end... but maybe it's the end of the beginning.
I am continually more impressed with the intellegience of the federal judiciary. Out of all the Powers that Be, they seem to be way the most clued-in.
For everybody else, it's hard to see what, if anything, will change as a result of this surreal conflict between 18th-century laws and institutions and 21st-century economic realities....
Almost all the significance was symbolic. The findings changed little in the short term, and probably even less in the long run... Yesterday brought the odd spectacle of 21st-century economic problem confronted by a century-old law (the Sherman Anti-Trust Act) being deployed by a 225-year-old institution (the federal judiciary) and analyzed by an ancient information structure (the news media)
I agree that little will happen immediately (except for the great karmic Microsoft Sell-off). But I disagree that the symbolism in this case is irrelevant or unimportant or "not real". I find great relief in the government's action and the judge's decision. For far too long, most signs have pointed the way toward a corporation-dominated future where everything is fungible (including human dignity) and citizens have been reduced to mere ciphers and cogs in the economic engine... where the hard-won and tenuous grasp on human rights has been swept away in the name of market inefficiency... where the Great Experiment of Washington, Jefferson, et al, has renounced its purpose and its principles.
But in fact, at least for once, the government actually intervened on behalf of the nameless, facless citizenry, taking on the poster child for the post-industrial, ethic-less, trampling economy. For a little while, at least, humans retain some control of their inventions, technological andeconomic. For the first time in a long time, a signal has been sent that the ability to make a fast buck does not necessarily justify any behavior whatsoever.
Does this mean we're "safe"? Have we clawed our way out of the trap of the 21st century? Has human dignity and the individual triumphed over the cold, unfathomable corporate forces? No. Not at all. We've won, as Katz says, a symbolic victory. A statement has been made.
Lately we need all the victories we can get, symbolic or otherwise. And remember (as I like to quote Cosmo from Sneakers), "It's about what we see and hear and think." It's about the information and the perception. In the end, it's about the symbols people use to navigate through their lives. So a symbolic victory is nothing to sneeze at.
Re:Everybody take a breather
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
Quoth the poster:
Think about it, whats the chance that Internet would be what it is today if Microsoft had not made the browser free? Would the Internet be as large a communitity?
Uh, yeah. I don't even see this as an issue. I haven't even heard of, much less seen, any evidence that offering IE for $0 (I will not dignify it with "free".:) ) has accelerated Internet development. Yes, there are a lot of new users, and yes, they are largely using IE. Had IE not cost $0, had Netscape kept a $50 fee, would the growth of the Net have been seriously impeded? I don't think so, and I for one would have to see serious work to convince me otherwise.
People act as if the superexponential growth of Net users came about with $-costless IE, but in fact it'd been going on for quite some time before . (That's what spooked MS into making IE in the first place...) And I haven't seen any reliable metric that indicates that Net growth had been levelling off prior to the $0 release of IE.
It is impossible to prove "might have beens" but I think it's reasonable to ask that trends you claim to have averted were actually happening. But maybe that's just me.
It costs Iridium LLC $10Million dollars per month to keep the satellites whizzing around the Earth. According to stories like this one it is going to cost $30-50Million for them to even de-orbit the satellites.
Well, technically, it doesn't cost one thin dime to keep them in orbit. Getting them there cost money. Using them would cost money. But leaving them alone is free... with the possible liability issue ignored.:)
Re:Is Slashdot soliciting Warez and Illegal MP3s?
on
GNUTella Search Tool
·
· Score: 5
Asketh the poster:
Is Slashdot soliciting Warez and Illegal MP3s?
No. Slashdot is into spreading the word about new distribution technologies for digital content. The underlying assumption (presumption?) behind this question could just as well ask, "Is Goodyear soliciting bank robberies?" (since, after all, auto tires can be used in getaway vehicles).
How long will it take for people to realize this is not an issue of copyright v. theft, or bandwidth v. theft of services? As Cosmo said in Sneakers, "It's about who controls the information -- what we see and hear, how we work, what we think -- It's all about the information."
The judge might be able to set aside your license if he deems the product itself illegal, but surely not because someone else in essense bought a different license to the same thing.
Interesting question: Doesn't a purchase by Mattel meann they implicitly agree that the product is legal? It is certainly illegal to aid and abet an illegal industry by purchasing illegal items...
I wouldn't fight. At least not for this. Other free speech issues, you bet, but not hacked software. Wouldn't be worth my time.
Well, it's just me, but I don't believe it's quite a propos to call this "hacked software". They made no modifications to CyberPatrol itself; they merely conducted an analysis of its code (and its output). They wrote a different program that could take that output and render it legible, but I'm not sure that's a hack.
But maybe that's just semantics. Anyway, I wouldn't impugn anyone's motives who had stared a malicious corporate lawsuit in the face, but I wish they had decided to fight. Sadly, the big guns usually win.
and if we could convince enough artists that it was safe, then the other artists would probably eventually follow, and we could all just quietly move away from big companies, thus making everyone happy. (Except the big companies)
of course, they're the ones with the cash, and so they probably wouldn't go down quietly, (I think they already sense that the end is near, hence DMCA and its friends)
That's it, exactly. Notice that the MPAA and RIAA aren't going after the so-called "pirates". They are attacking the format that (they claim) make the "piracy" possible -- even though it has lots of legitimate uses. They are going after the Web sites linking to open software (not copyrighted content), rather than the illegal copies they claim are flooding the market. They are suing people discussing the situation, not people causing it. Why?
Becuase the MPAA and RIAA, like many animals on the verge of extinction, have an inkling that something's not right. They don't understand the Net but they sense a menace in it to their 20% to 30% overprofits. They understand that this is a cultural war, and that the fight isn't over encryption processes or exchange protocols. It's about the common perception of what is "allowed" and what is not.
Sadly, too many on the other side don't understand this, and so we concede them every victory in the social and legal arenas...
Calling these "planets" is a little misleading...these are stars that never got big enough.
The Greek origin of "planet" actually means "wanderer" (since the planets seem to wander across the sky compared to the fixed stars). If these new gas supergiants aren't bound to any particular star, then they are even more "planets" (in this sense) than our planets are...:)
There are *so* many holes in the DVD players, formats, etc., etc. that it won't be a problem for anyone to get around these "features" the MPAA wants... And just how legal is this "region-coding" crap, anyhow?
I'm not trying to be flamebait, but I think this misses the point. The MPAA knew people would hack the regional codes, etc. They knew someone would break the encryption. They don't care. (Why else pick such a lousy encryption scheme?) Believe it or not, they aren't viewing this as a technological thing at all.
They are trying to win sociologically. Sure, there'll always be the malcontents and malfeasants who will trade hacks and thumb their noses. But 95% of the world's people (esp. in the industrialized nations) will do what has been socially approved and will avoid that which has been labelled "bad" or "illegal". That's why the MPAA is trying to paint everyone with the "pirate" label... because Joe Q. Public hears "pirate" and thinks "ooh, bad".
The MPAA understands, as so few do, that the world today is divided into three groups: the drones, the geeks, and the sheep. The geeks are numerically insignificant. The drones are, well, the MPAA. And the sheep are everyone else. Drones feed on sheep and you can be darn sure that the drones want to breed the sheep to stay still.
The US Military has wanted smarter toys so they can use lesser trained people.
Funny, but the actual trend in the Armed Forces has been exactly the opposite; ie., toward more technically-skilled people. Indeed, I believe the Army, like corporate America, is starting to have trouble finding people able to run the things they need run.
They'd be equally heir to Hitler, Khan, Alexander, Atilla, Ivan, Caesar, etc, etc. It's that might word that scares me.
Fair enough. Of course they'll be heirs to the whole human experience. But look at it this way: Those guys you mention succeeded by appealing to and exploiting the animal part of human nature. The guys I mention constructed what (they hoped) would be intellectual models of how the world should be. They access different areas of the human experience.
But the AIs will be heirs to our "thinking" parts, not our semi-evolved primate biochemical imperatives. I feel, quite strongly, that it is the intellectual parts that will appeal to them, that they will adopt.
I don't think technology has ever worked out in the long run in the way planned it to.
Well, I'm an optimist, but from my vantage, technology does tend to work out -- even when it's not the way people planned. But of course others can have a different but valid feel for the matter.
Isn't it kinda of starry-eyed to think This Time We'll Get It Right and hand over the keys?
Considering the job humans have done, in general, in running the place, one could say that almost anything would be better. In a lot of ways, I'm not saying we'll get it right at all. I believe that our "heirs" will be making those choices for themselves.
But in one sense I agree with Joy: This is going to happen. I am unconvinced that we should stop it, but I am virtually certain that we can't stop it. It will happen -- in a friendly way or an unfriendly way -- and hoping it won't isn't going to help.
I disagree that coke is a slang word. Coke has been commercially associated with the drink longer then it turned into drug slang.
I'm sorry, but your opinion on whether it's a slang word has really no effect on the fact, which is that it's a slang word. "Coca-Cola" originated with a drink that included cocaine, and the two usages of Coke have been evolved contemporaneously ever since. It simply isn't valid to say, "Oh, well, I got this here trademark, so I get to say what the language is."
And there is the valid point, raised by others, that "Coke" = "Coca Cola" for English speakers only.
Slashdot Mirror
I might be whistling through my teeth, but I think that's the situation in Switzerland. In which case, it might be the additional barriers to gun usage that explains the low accident rate.
Example: The NSA should invest in codebreaking technology. It's part of their mandate. But we shouldn't have to hand over keys, to obviate the need for the codebreaking tech.
But I still aver that the First Amendment is as important as the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta says, "The laws apply to everyone", but it says nothing about those laws. Such a system need not be a free one -- the law can still specify what you are to do, think, or feel. The law can still allow retaliation for the expression of "improper" belief. But under the First Amendment, you are free to think what you want and to express your thoughts.
To put it another way: Under the Magna Carta, you can pass a law that says, "Two plus two equals five. Anyone who says otherwise is committing treason." As long as it did apply to everyone, the principles of the Magna Carta are upheld. (And, I suppose, as long as an assembly OKd the law.) But the First Amendment allows you to say, emphatically, "Two plus two equals four" and to avoid legal rataliation.
Of course it also allows you to say "Two plus two equals six". The First Amendment makes you free; it doesn't necessarily make you right. But what a wonderfully optimistic philosophy it is! So long as everyone is allowed to speak, then someone will speak the truth, and the truth will win out. I find that an uplifting view of the human race. It might not be true :) but it is uplifting.
Day by day I am more and more amazed with this mighty engine, invented almost by accident by 55 guys in Philadelphia. (Before you get on my case, I know similar concepts had been pushed by several of the states... I was going for historical resonance. :) )
There's a sweet symbolism in this being the _First_ (as in foremost) Amendment. It wouldn't have the same power as "Article VI" or whatever...
This week, for a little bit, I can begin to hope again.
I can't emphasize enough how important this is, in my opinion. I can't yet express it but there's a kernel of something here, something deep and important about the culture war that's going on today. It's very important that we can laugh at ourselves. In my experience, those who can go far off course much less often than those who can't. I haven't worked out the karmic connection but it's there.
I am continually more impressed with the intellegience of the federal judiciary. Out of all the Powers that Be, they seem to be way the most clued-in.
According to my memory, and the IMDB, it was Andy Griffith, not Dick van Dike.
But in fact, at least for once, the government actually intervened on behalf of the nameless, facless citizenry, taking on the poster child for the post-industrial, ethic-less, trampling economy. For a little while, at least, humans retain some control of their inventions, technological andeconomic. For the first time in a long time, a signal has been sent that the ability to make a fast buck does not necessarily justify any behavior whatsoever.
Does this mean we're "safe"? Have we clawed our way out of the trap of the 21st century? Has human dignity and the individual triumphed over the cold, unfathomable corporate forces? No. Not at all. We've won, as Katz says, a symbolic victory. A statement has been made.
Lately we need all the victories we can get, symbolic or otherwise. And remember (as I like to quote Cosmo from Sneakers), "It's about what we see and hear and think." It's about the information and the perception. In the end, it's about the symbols people use to navigate through their lives. So a symbolic victory is nothing to sneeze at.
People act as if the superexponential growth of Net users came about with $-costless IE, but in fact it'd been going on for quite some time before . (That's what spooked MS into making IE in the first place...) And I haven't seen any reliable metric that indicates that Net growth had been levelling off prior to the $0 release of IE.
It is impossible to prove "might have beens" but I think it's reasonable to ask that trends you claim to have averted were actually happening. But maybe that's just me.
How long will it take for people to realize this is not an issue of copyright v. theft, or bandwidth v. theft of services? As Cosmo said in Sneakers, "It's about who controls the information -- what we see and hear, how we work, what we think -- It's all about the information."
But maybe that's just semantics. Anyway, I wouldn't impugn anyone's motives who had stared a malicious corporate lawsuit in the face, but I wish they had decided to fight. Sadly, the big guns usually win.
Becuase the MPAA and RIAA, like many animals on the verge of extinction, have an inkling that something's not right. They don't understand the Net but they sense a menace in it to their 20% to 30% overprofits. They understand that this is a cultural war, and that the fight isn't over encryption processes or exchange protocols. It's about the common perception of what is "allowed" and what is not.
Sadly, too many on the other side don't understand this, and so we concede them every victory in the social and legal arenas...
But I had to say that I think the idea of a Snowcrash adaptation could be really cool.
They are trying to win sociologically. Sure, there'll always be the malcontents and malfeasants who will trade hacks and thumb their noses. But 95% of the world's people (esp. in the industrialized nations) will do what has been socially approved and will avoid that which has been labelled "bad" or "illegal". That's why the MPAA is trying to paint everyone with the "pirate" label ... because Joe Q. Public hears "pirate" and thinks "ooh, bad".
The MPAA understands, as so few do, that the world today is divided into three groups: the drones, the geeks, and the sheep. The geeks are numerically insignificant. The drones are, well, the MPAA. And the sheep are everyone else. Drones feed on sheep and you can be darn sure that the drones want to breed the sheep to stay still.
But the AIs will be heirs to our "thinking" parts, not our semi-evolved primate biochemical imperatives. I feel, quite strongly, that it is the intellectual parts that will appeal to them, that they will adopt.
Well, I'm an optimist, but from my vantage, technology does tend to work out -- even when it's not the way people planned. But of course others can have a different but valid feel for the matter. Considering the job humans have done, in general, in running the place, one could say that almost anything would be better. In a lot of ways, I'm not saying we'll get it right at all. I believe that our "heirs" will be making those choices for themselves.But in one sense I agree with Joy: This is going to happen. I am unconvinced that we should stop it, but I am virtually certain that we can't stop it. It will happen -- in a friendly way or an unfriendly way -- and hoping it won't isn't going to help.
As I've said, though, I don't feel it's a threat.
And there is the valid point, raised by others, that "Coke" = "Coca Cola" for English speakers only.